HERI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 12, 2003

¿

0910

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.))

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ)

The Chair

¿

0915

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Christine Fisher)

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

¿

0920

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

¿

0925

The Chair

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.)

¿

0930

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

¿

0935

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.)

¿

0940

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Delagrave (Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, National Library of Canada/National Archives of Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage)

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Andrée Delagrave

The Chair

Mr. Paul Bonwick

¿

0945

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Paul Bonwick

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

¿

0950

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Paul Bonwick

¿

0955

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

À

1000

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Paul Bonwick

The Chair

Mr. Paul Bonwick

The Clerk

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

---

NUMBER 045

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0910)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'll call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today to consider Bill C-36, An Act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act, and to amend certain acts in consequence.

    Today the meeting is set to examine clause-by-clause of the bill.

[Translation]

    Ms. Girard-Bujold, you asked for time to speak. Go ahead.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chair, I find that a cavalier approach is being taken to the examination of this bill. The information commissioner's intervention came as a shock and we francophones did not have the French version of his speech. He raised a number of points.

    I cannot work freely and constructively on this bill Mr. Chair. I require the French version of the information commissioner's text; otherwise the Bloc Quebecois will not be able to work on this bill.

    I find the government's approach deplorable. We are creating an entity which combines two entities. What are we doing now? We in the Bloc wanted to split the bill and take out everything that had to do with copyright. Yes, it was decided to do that, but there is something else as well, Mr. Chair.

    We started off with the assumption that we were going to act responsibly and listen to those who came to explain to us the reasons for this merger. We did not get that information. We had no normal hearings, and this is regrettable, Mr. Chair.

    I therefore am calling for the study of the bill to be discontinued, because I do not have the French version of the documents. This is a requirement from the Bloc Quebecois. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: O.K.

    Ms. Girard-Bujold, we will come back to the matter of the brief from Mr. Reid. You are correct in saying that it ought to have been submitted to the committee in both official languages, particularly since it was coming from the information commissioner. I find it deplorable that this agent of the Canadian government did not even think to submit his brief in both languages. We will get back to that.

    As for the information, all the committee members had total latitude to provide us with information on those wanting to be heard. We asked all committee members, without distinction, to provide us with suggestions on people who wanted to be heard. The officials provided us with a preliminary list and this was given to all committee members. Everyone was invited. I clearly recall that the only one asking for Mr. Reid to be invited was Mr. Strahl. There was no other request.

    We asked all committee members for suggestions, and could not issue invitations to people that were not suggested. I therefore believe your comment about hearings not held is not totally acceptable. We heard everyone on the list, including Mr. Reid, invited at the suggestion of Mr. Strahl.

    Initially, when discussing the question of the witnesses to be heard, we did not expect any problems. I think that all committee members, including opposition members, thought there was no problem with this bill. It was during the hearings that we realized there were objections relating to the copyright issue.

    When Mr. Reid came, he made representations relating to departmental documents. The officials are prepared to provide totally clear answers to his questions. The parliamentary secretary held discussions with him

    As for the copyright issue, one raised by the intervenors, the government has taken steps to withdraw the provisions dealing with this. At that time, therefore, there was nothing to prevent us from moving on as planned. We hoped that study of this bill, given its topic and the relatively low number of clauses, might be done before the House rose.

    As for Mr. Reid, I believe the point you are raising is totally legitimate. I will ask the clerk if she has received the French version of the text from Mr. Reid.

¿  (0915)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Christine Fisher): Not yet.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, when we heard Mr. Reid, do you think that having his text in hand could have made a difference, or is this merely a delaying tactic? Of course, the point you are raising is totally legitimate, and we must have the French version of this document, but how is this going to change your attitude?

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chair, we could have moved amendments but we cannot because the information commissioner came and raised some very important points, particularly on the librarian and archivist and the advisory council, the members of which will be appointed by the minister. The information commissioner supported me on this, saying that this committee ought to be independent and the librarian and archivist ought to be accountable to Parliament.

    There are no changes in this bill. There is not even any latitude to table amendments. The parliamentary secretary came and gave it to me in the lobby yesterday afternoon. Does this seem normal to you? Do you think that I, and the Bloc members, have had time to prepare amendments to this bill ? I did not have the documents and I did not have the time to prepare amendments. As you are aware, there are rules to follow when one wants to table amendments. They need to be approved and translated. I have been hampered in my duties as a parliamentarian as far as a study of this bill is concerned.

    This is the basis of my argument this morning.

    The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, this bill did not just arrive when the parliamentary secretary came to you in Parliament yesterday. It was introduced in the House some weeks ago. It cannot be said to have arrived yesterday. How is it that the Canadian Alliance was able to present amendments, and all these discussions were able to take place? This bill did not just turn up yesterday.

[English]

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, to be fair, certainly I used some of Mr. Reid's comments to try to draft amendments. We were here until 8:30 last night, because you don't start drafting amendments--or I don't, at least--until the end of the testimony. I wait until I hear all the witnesses and then I draft amendments. I don't draft before testimony because I like to learn something, and I hope I do, during the testimony.

    I have some draft amendments. We had translators here last night, we had legislative clerks, and they all did a wonderful job, but finally at 8:30 I sent everybody home and said, “I just can't get them completed.”

    I guess my point is that, at least for my own purposes and even for our party's purposes, sometimes you put forward amendments that you know may not pass; you're trying to make a point. You're trying to say, “I think this is the way it could work better, so here's my amendment. This is what I think, or what our party thinks, would improve this bill.” If it doesn't pass, c'est la vie. You just move on. But you do use it as a political...not a delaying tactic but as a way to say this is something we consistently do to show that we're interested, that we have ideas that we think could improve it, and then you move on.

    I have spoken to government members, and as far trying to put the two organizations together, I think there's broad consensus on that, even from all witnesses and from, I think, all parties. But even at that, it's not something where you say, “We ought to put it together, so whatever.” No one says “whatever”; you say, “Well, we heard some testimony from all different kinds of different people, with pros and cons on both sides, and at the end of it I'd like to put forward some amendments.”

    Now, many of the amendments will be defeated, but it's our job to put them forward. At the end of it, hopefully, we can put the two institutions together, and we can make our points in terms of the things we'd like to see. If we don't win, that's the legislative process. I'm happy with that--and I don't like it, but generally the Liberals win.

    The problem we have here is that I now have some draft amendments. I've tried to get them translated. There are technical errors, and words missing. I already have a couple scratched on here. I did try, until last night late, or fairly late, and I finally just said to the guys, after they'd put in 12 hours, “I can't ask you to stay longer on such short notice.”

    So if we move ahead with it, I'll try my best to make points on generalities, because I don't really have enough technical amendments to make my points. I'm just going to have to say, “This here, I don't like it.” and I'll just blast away about why I don't, and then it will be defeated or carried. But I do think it's a poor way to draft legislation, and it's not really respectful of committee members who have listened to all the witnesses and at the end would like sometimes just to say, “I'd like to make my point on this, and here's the amendment.” If it gets defeated you move on.

    When you can't even put the amendment forward, you're left with gratuitous political statements. And that's a poor way to do it, really.

    Certainly I used Mr. Reid's comments for a couple of amendments, and I'm sure it would be useful for the Bloc

¿  (0920)  

[Translation]

    to have the French version for the same reason.

[English]

    The Chair: Madam Allard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Chair, the department is proposing an approach this morning. It is true that the witnesses raised points concerning copyright and unpublished works.

[English]

non-published works and copyrights.

[Translation]

    The witnesses, except Mr. Reid, have mostly talked about copyright. They were concerned with copyright issues, and the department's reaction was to remove clauses 21 and 22, since the purpose of the legislation is to speed up the process of merging the two institutions. We have heard that decisions were required imminently in both organizations. Thus, I think that the copyright issue should pose no problem because it has been proposed that the problem clauses be removed.

    We are, of course, getting close to the last minute but I believe that even Mr. Reid was 90% in favour of the merger. He said himself that the current circumstances were favourable because of the presence of Mr. Carrier and Mr. Wilson. I think that all the witnesses agreed that amalgamation is desirable for both institutions.

    As for the rest, Mr. Reid has his personal opinion. He is responsible for an important sector in the government and nothing stands in the way of having his views heard and accepted in another forum or of having another law passed that would satisfy him.

    The department's officials in charge of the merger listened to the witnesses and proposed amendments. I have provided each of you with the updated version with the proposed amendments. You will have seen that the bill's provisions regarding copyright have disappeared. I should say that this bill essentially retains the contents of the National Archives Act and the National Library Act. I have made copies. You can see that we are not reinventing the wheel. We are amalgamating the former acts so that the two institutions can make the merger a reality and not be delayed by six months because we do not sit in the summer.

    Mr. Chair, in an ideal world, things might have worked out differently, but Ms. Girard-Bujold did have time to ask questions of Mr. Reid, and we had interpretation. I also think it is odd that Mr. Reid, a government official, did not submit the English and French versions of his brief when he appeared before the committee.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

¿  (0925)  

    The Chair: I do not want to pass judgment on Mr. Reid, especially since he is not here. Besides, the clerk has mentioned something important: Mr. Reid did not give us a brief; he had some notes for his presentation, with the title Notes for a Speech. They were his personal speaking notes and were not distributed.

    Nevertheless, if he came here with notes for his speech and intended to distribute them to committee members, such notes should have been in both official languages. That would clearly have been the least we could expect. So, it was not really a brief.

[English]

    Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a few points to touch on.

    First of all, I agree with the chairman that last week there was broad consensus that we were going to be dealing with this thing in a reasonably timely fashion, because it appeared that most members on the committee, if not all, accepted the fact that it was likely a good thing to see both organizations merge into one.

    But there's where I would deviate from the chair's interpretation. Regardless of the fact that this thing was introduced into the House weeks ago, we were asked to deal with this thing last week. In fairness, unless you're an expert on libraries and archives, you're not sure what questions to ask. You're not sure who the specialists are in the field to make recommendations. Typically, then, there is more time for you as a member of Parliament to receive phone calls, as I did yesterday, and to have people ask for appointments to meet you and bring forward their opinions. Quite frankly, they will make requests that perhaps they should have an opportunity to speak at committee, at which time we would either refer them to the chair or the clerk. Clearly this has not taken place.

    I feel compelled to defend the officer from two days ago--the testimony of Mr. Reid--because quite frankly, in spite of the department, if it weren't for Mr. Strahl he wouldn't even have been here. We can't put unrealistic expectations on him to provide translation when he's only been given one or two days' notice,and when we can't do it any quicker. So to suggest that it's deplorable or otherwise for him not to provide translation when, quite frankly, it was an eleventh-hour thing to bring him in here, is somewhat unfair.

    With regard to the objections, I think there have been two. I think the parliamentary secretary, in fairness, has dealt with one to a large extent, but I heard two overriding concerns. One was challenges within the copyright, or concerns within the copyright section. I believe the parliamentary secretary has done a good job of eliminating those things by taking them out. But there was also an issue centred around governance, and quite frankly, with all due respect to Madam Girard-Bujold, there may be....

    For instance, I spoke to the parliamentary secretary yesterday about some possible amendments from me about the governance issues.

    So I'm not saying this is a bad idea. In fact, I'm saying it sounds like it's a very good idea. What I'm saying is that to be asked, in reality, in a few short days to deal with something that appears to be more complex than it was last week...and if that's ignorance on my part, then it is. Quite frankly, I am not an expert on archives and on libraries. I can understand the broad efficiencies that can be created, but when we start getting into issues surrounding governance, when we start getting into issues surrounding copyright, then I need more information.

    Again, typically what happens is people will come forward and provide me with that information, not simply at committee. They will send me letters. They will phone me. They will meet with me. None of that has taken place because we haven't had time for that to take place.

    Under the stewardship of this chair, I don't think, in the four years I've sat on the committee, I have ever witnessed any significant delay tactics. The committee generally works not always in agreement but generally with consensus to move forward. Quite frankly, I don't see this as delay tactics when in fact....

    If we had been told six weeks ago that we were going to set aside these two or these three days specifically to deal with this, and this was posted, and then our staff had an opportunity to explore all these other things, to hear from people calling our offices, then I think we would have, in fairness, perhaps had more to offer than what we can right now.

    On the general principle of the merge, clearly, based on the evidence I've seen so far, it makes tremendous sense. On the implications, I think Mr. Reid summed it up quite nicely after I asked him about the costs associated with not doing it immediately. He broke it into two components. In his opinion—and obviously he is not an expert on the costs or efficiencies of merging a library and archive--there are the costs associated in the short term with not having the mechanisms in place to move beyond the planning stages in the coming months. Those are the short-term costs. On the long-term costs, this thing will be here for years, and if we don't appreciate all the implications, we don't know what the long-term costs are going to be.

¿  (0930)  

    So with all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, I think it is clearly unfair, most certainly to the opposition members and to some of us who do take a keen interest in clause-by-clause, if we do not review it and do the jobs we were sent here to do. And I don't know that we've been offered that opportunity on this specific piece of legislation.

    So I have sympathy for both Ms. Girard-Bujold and Mr. Strahl.

    The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chair, I request that we defer clause by clause study of this bill. In our work plan, it was not mentioned that we were going to proceed with clause by clause study of this bill today. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Chair, to carry this study over to the next sitting, since we in the Bloc Québécois are being handcuffed as we try to fulfil our role as members of parliament.

    I would have wanted to put forward some amendments. Like Mr. Strahl, I want to be heard. If the Bloc had had the opportunity to put forward its amendments, it would have made itself heard. We know that the members of the party in power would have defeated these amendments, but we would have made ourselves heard. We would have defended those who could not come here to be heard. I have always been that way. You knew me on the Environment committee and you know I have always spoken for those without a voice. This morning I think we are putting a gag on the voiceless.

    Mr. Chair, I request that clause by clause study be deferred.

    The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, first I will say that I have not made a decision. You spoke of gags and so on. You cannot say that until it is over. I have not made a decision. I think those words are uncalled for.

    Further, you could have suggested that we invite the voiceless people you mention, but you did not. We asked you in the proper way to invite people who wanted to speak and we have listened to everyone who wanted to be heard.

    I have not yet made a decision, but I believe you have raised a legitimate point as well. I know that it will not please everyone here, but I think that going forward under the circumstances might not be fair. I believe that certain members of the committee had Mr. Reid's notes and were able to read them. I think Mr. Strahl indicated that he had them. So, in complete fairness, if certain committee members received them in English, you have the right to get them in French.

    Second, if you did not have time to prepare amendments and if we defer the clause by clause study to a later date, that will be the final deadline. We will have to meet next Tuesday, and if we are not ready then, it will be too late.

    I repeat: it is not correct that people have been left without a voice and that we have left certain people unheard, and so on. We had all the latitude we might wish to invite everyone we wanted to. We wanted to have round table discussions and we were all satisfied. We accepted the list of witnesses in a unanimous vote and Mr. Reid's name was added at Mr. Strahl's suggestion.

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: Ms. Frulla

    Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.): I would like to add that last week as well, I asked why it was so urgent to pass this law. I was not here for Mr. Reid's presentation. I wanted to bring forward an amendment on the whole copyright issue, because that is what worried me the most. It was the topic on which we had the most calls and representations based on justified concerns. I had the opportunity to talk to certain department officials and I am happy to see that the department has accepted the best solution, which is to remove everything dealing with copyright from this bill, so that we can study these provisions at the same time as the Copyright Act and harmonize the two.

    Of course, we find ourselves being pushed a bit. Rather like Paul, I would like to have more details about the advisory council, especially its makeup, but such details can always be added through amendments.

    If it is urgent to pass this bill, well then, let us meet on Tuesday, pass the necessary amendments, and do the clause by clause study. I will tell you why.

    After talking to a number of people, I realize that a move is necessary and so is protecting certain collections, and this should be done at the time the two institutions are merged. No one here objects to this in principle, I believe. It has been done before, in other provinces. Thus, we are talking about the danger some of our collections are now in, and also about providing better service to our researchers and academics. So it has to be done as soon as possible. I would feel very badly if, because we did not give ourselves the five or six days we need to do this work, we slowed down the passage of the bill.

    I am convinced that the copyright provisions should be removed from the bill. The necessary amendments regarding the advisory council can be made later. As for the rest, these two institutions have decided on their own to merge for the good of the collections and the users. I would be unhappy if we refused to take the few days needed to pass this bill. If we slow down its passage, they will have to wait months more. As a professional, I would have trouble accepting that.

    I am in favour of proceeding with the study, not today but Tuesday. Thus, each one of us can do the work we think is necessary and feel satisfied.

¿  (0940)  

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Lill.

    Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Just on that point, my concern in this bill always has been the protection of collections and making sure that what we're doing here is for the good of the two collections. I guess I just need assurances that this is in fact what the rush is, because I too feel that we are rushed. I haven't had the time to give this the kind of attention I would like to give it.

    Is there some way we can get just a sense of what the urgency is? Is there a real physical urgency, a collection protection issue here that is critical, and we have to act fast? We may not be here next Tuesday, quite frankly, and if we're not, are we leaving Roch Carrier and the museum in a really bad position? I would feel very worried if that were the case.

    The Chair: Your question is timely, so I'll ask Madam Delagrave to address it.

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave (Assistant Deputy Minister, Transformation, National Library of Canada/National Archives of Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): We're not talking about urgency in terms of a couple of days, but basically the two institutions have been working at this transformation process for several months now, and I think we've gone as far as we can go, being two legal entities. We still have two budgets, two parliamentary votes. That is not helpful when you're trying to make decisions about storage for the protection of collections, accommodation for staff, etc.

    We have two heads, two reporting structures, and we report separately to Parliament. So to move forward, to make decisions about our future, we need to come as one institution, to have one head and one budget. As long as we don't have that, we probably have gone as far as we can with our movement toward becoming one institution.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: One of the concerns I've always had and need assurances on is the one budget as opposed to the two budgets. Is this one budget the size of both budgets combined? I don't want to see any shrinkage in the budget, because obviously there's not enough to begin with for either of the organizations.

    So I need that kind of assurance, and obviously I'd like to know that there won't be any shrinkage in the number of employees, because we also know there's not enough of them--not enough archivists, or librarians, or people to care for the collections.

    Again, these are concerns I have before we move into clause-by-clause.

    Ms. Andrée Delagrave: This is not a cost-cutting exercise, and neither is it a staff reduction exercise. It's quite the opposite. By putting the collections together, by putting our expertise together, by putting our space together, by putting our technical or financial systems together, we believe we can do more for Canadians--with the same budget, hopefully, although we can always hope for an increase.

    So it is neither a cost-saving nor staff-reducing exercise. It is quite the opposite, doing more with what we have.

    The Chair: Mr. Bonwick.

    Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chairman, I have a proposal. I think you've exercised, once again, great wisdom in suggesting that there be an opportunity, a specific date, arguably next Tuesday, to bring forward any further amendments. But I might suggest, having reading the bill, that I think there will be many clauses that we presently agree on. When we're dealing with governance or anything specifically tailored towards Mr. Reid's presentation, arguably we could set those aside. We may only have on Tuesday five or six amendments, or five or six clauses, that we have to deal with. So we may be in a position today to very quickly go through the vast majority of this.

    With all due respect, Madam Girard-Bujold, just take clause 1 with regard to the short title of the act. I think we're going to be able to agree on that.

¿  (0945)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's my first amendment.

    Some hon. members: Oh,oh!

    Mr. Paul Bonwick: But we can deal with that amendment.

    I mean, look at clause 3:

    

This Act binds Her Majesty in right of Canada.

Are we going to argue about whether Her Majesty is going to do this or not?

    So there are some fairly simplistic clauses in here that I think would be disposed of. Whether it's next Tuesday or two years from next Tuesday, we would just simply fan through those very quickly. If there is the least concern on one particular clause that you believe you may want to bring forward an amendment on, I will support you in the form of deferring that clause.

    I mean, some of these are somewhat motherhood issues: “The objects of the Library and Archives of Canada are....” Well, I'm not an archivist, and neither am I a librarian, so I'm going to have to assume that you've done your job appropriately and that the job or the title or objectives are accordingly.

    What I'm saying is, in the interests of compromise and efficiency, we could get through likely 50% to 75% of this thing in a very timely fashion. For any of the ones that are of concern, we still have the opportunity to come back on Tuesday morning and finish it off very quickly.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I am sorry, Mr. Chair, but I disagree. I want to do the clause by clause consideration all at once, because I want the amendments I intend to move to be considered in context. What Mr. Bonwick is proposing is even worse.

    Mr. Chair, I was not accusing you just now. I am new to this committee, and I was not present when consideration of the bill began. When I arrived, I did not know anything about this, but the more I dig, the more questions I have. That is what I wanted to tell you. I was not accusing you. I know you and I know that you have always been very open-minded. You are always willing to accommodate all those who want to speak during hearings.

    Mr. Chair, there is something strange about this bill. There are two individuals heading the two agencies seeking to merge. These two individuals have laid the groundwork, and the parliamentarians are to approve their vision. Usually, the government has the vision when it comes to a merger or a bill, but it is the opposite here: they are telling us what should be in the bill. Mr. Chair, I find the government's behaviour with regard to this bill to be strange.

    As Ms. Frulla suggested, I would be willing to come back next Tuesday and truly do my duty as a parliamentarian by moving the amendments that I will defend. If we have to set aside the day to do this, I am prepared to do so. The suggestion that has just been made does not give me the latitude I need as a parliamentarian, and I am asking you to defer clause by clause consideration.

    The Chair: Let us set this decision aside for a moment. I want to clearly state that we cannot have it both ways, Ms. Girard-Bujold. If consideration is deferred because you want time to prepare additional amendments, that is one thing. But if you want to discuss this issue in depth and say that the approach is bad because these two officials met and suggested things to the government, I will tell you that other people think exactly the opposite. They think it very positive and exceptional, within government, for two heads of quality organizations, at the highest level, to decide to merge. Let us hope that the government will see many other examples of this. It is not every day that two top-notch individuals, of the highest integrity and with great humility, set aside their status and say that they want their two organizations to merge and that the resulting organization will be headed by one individual, who will be neither of them or perhaps one of them. I find this quite noble and very remarkable, and the government supports this. It is quite amazing.

    Otherwise, the two organizations would continue to exist as they are now. I think you were present when Mr. Carrier and Mr. Wilson appeared. It is extremely illogical: one deals with pictures and the other deals publications. This made no sense, and these top-notch individuals with international reputations had the good sense and the intelligence to propose this merger. So, I think the bill is quite good in this regard. But there is still the other matter.

    Mr. Strahl.

¿  (0950)  

[English]

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I agree with much of what you said there, Mr. Chairman, but we're taking about two different things. I think everyone's in agreement that they should come together, and I do admire the efforts made by departmental officials and the archivist and librarian to do that, kind of taking the bull by the horns and moving it ahead. I'm in admiration, and I think it's a proper goal. I think we should try to facilitate it. It's just a matter of trying to squeeze it in.

    Mr. Reid, for example, said on Tuesday last that he sure hoped we were going to hear from the president of the Treasury Board and the minister responsible, which is pretty typical on a bill. You normally get a minister in and ask, “How do you see it working? Who is going to be in charge? We just want to make sure it's clear. Is it clear in your mind? Because it's not clear in ours.”

    I've asked maybe not every witness but quite a few, so where's the plan? Where's the org chart? If nobody has it, the officials can't proceed further. Do the ministers know who's in charge? The department hasn't completed the plan because they can only go so far, I think, before the legislation comes through.

    All that is to say I don't want a bunch more witnesses either. I don't think it's necessary. It wouldn't hurt to have the minister here, but whether that's absolutely necessary I guess is debatable. But I just would like the opportunity....

    If I had until Tuesday I could complete these amendments and get them distributed. The government and other members of the committee could say, “Oh, I see we're going to have debate on this.” And they may or may not like what they see, but there are no surprises. I don't want to surprise anyone. I would just like to proceed in an orderly way.

    Again, normally I think it would be right to say that it's only proper to have the minister in charge of bill to appear. I don't think it would be incorrect to do that. I think it's typical. But we could say it doesn't matter because we're in a big rush, and maybe we just have to forgo that.

    In terms of management of the bill itself, I don't think it's an affront to suggest that properly drafted amendments be distributed ahead of time so that we're not hitting one another with a big surprise, and, when we know what they are, debating them as we go through this.

    I don't see that there's another better way to do it, Mr. Chairman. We all want to see it done, but that's just good management, and probably we can do it in a meeting. It's just that there's no other way for us to get to that stage.

    Really, Paul, even to go through it clause-by-clause...because if this is amended over there, you know what happens over here. We heard the discrepancy between the preamble and the objects and powers; if one is not fixed to reflect the other, then maybe I'll not be happy with it. But we don't know that. So rather than say let's just skip through it here and there, I think we'd be better just to take it from the first one. I think I'll approve the first amendment, on the name of the bill, and then after that we'll approve much of it.

    So I think we'll go through it fairly quickly. My amendments will be defeated or passed, I'll be happy, and the process will be followed properly.

    The Chair: Members, I would suggest we've had a lot of discussion. I'll hear Mr. Bonwick, I'll make a decision, and then we'll move on. Otherwise we'll spend two hours on this.

    Mr. Bonwick.

    Mr. Paul Bonwick: I just want to clarify something so that the committee has an understanding. I get the sense that there may be some confusion about what we're going to try to accomplish next Tuesday.

    We are not hearing from any more witnesses, we are dealing with clause-by-clause. I hear, “Well, we should do this, and we should do that.” But Tuesday at 11 o'clock, or 3 o'clock, or whatever time it is, begins clause-by-clause.

    The second thing I would say--and I'm fine to put it off, because I do have sympathy on the timing of this thing--is let's not lose sight of the fact as well that if, over the course of the summer, something should transpire, under the assumption that this thing is not necessarily going to get royal assent by the end of next week, we as a Parliament, we as individual parliamentarians, still hold the right to bring forward amendments within the House when it's being dealt with.

    So if we find out something radical over the course of the summer, we still have the ability, prior to royal assent, to bring forward amendments within the House as well. I just wanted to make sure we're clear that this is not about bringing in the Treasury Board president next week; this is starting clause-by-clause at whatever time we get a committee room.

¿  (0955)  

    The Chair: Okay.

    I think we've given a chance to everybody to be heard. I think points have been fairly put forward. Eventually we have to make a decision.

    Oui.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chair, if the House is adjourned tomorrow, would the committee still meet Tuesday?

    The Chair: In that case, it would be necessary to see if we can have quorum Tuesday, which would be very difficult. We would have the right to sit.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: In that case, could we sit tomorrow? Would there be enough time tomorrow?

    The Chair: I do not think that—

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I think that, if we managed to conclude clause by clause consideration, this would be a first indication for the two organizations. This would indicate to them that they can make decisions during the summer. Clarity is essential. There will be a Liberal leadership race, which could affect certain proceedings next fall. If we do not undertake clause by clause consideration of this bill before the House adjourns, we will prevent an organization from moving forward for at least six months.

    As a parliamentarian, for the reasons the Chair stated earlier, I would find it sad if two organizations that currently have momentum were prevented from moving forward because other discussions must be held. I do not know if it is possible, but it would be good for the committee to hold a special meeting tomorrow morning.

    I was told that cabinet members were going on a retreat Monday. Cabinet retreats mean that the House is adjourned.

[English]

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Not to belabour it too much, but if it's not going to be passed into law, we're not slowing down a whole lot anyway. I mean, it's the general consensus that this is going to go ahead somehow, fairly quickly. We're going to have amendments, but if it's not going to get approved.... You know, I don't know what's going to really change.

    The second point is that I think we can get our amendments all drafted tomorrow. I have them half done, and I think I can get them all done today and tomorrow. I would think they would be completed. But the process that I think would expedite it best is if by tomorrow night I could try to distribute these all to the committee members and to the clerks and so on.

    That way, I would have at least my own amendments in everyone's hands, and they could look at them. That would make it quicker on Tuesday, when we meet.

    So rather than coming in tomorrow and saying, “Surprise, here's an amendment”, I'd rather distribute them. I don't want to surprise anyone. It's not a delaying tactic, I'd just like to do it properly.

    The Chair: Let's not restart the whole discussion.

    Madam Frulla.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    If we're saying, professionally, we're coming on Tuesday because we don't want to delay something that we do agree on....

[Translation]

    Jocelyne, you say that these two important institutions decided on their own to merge. You must admit that, in Quebec, discussions were held with the Archives nationales and all the stakeholders about the Grande Bibliothèque. The stakeholders got together to ensure that everything goes smoothly. They were all in agreement, and things work better like that. Like Mr. Lincoln, I must say that this is extremely positive.

    That said, if we decide to meet Tuesday, I want all the members of the committee to commit to coming, so that there is quorum. I will be here Tuesday; Carole-Marie and Paul will also be here. We will do this on Tuesday—

    An hon. member: Even if the House is adjourned?

    Ms. Liza Frulla:If the House is adjourned and the committee intends to hold a special meeting, we need to find out the procedure. If we all agree to sit Tuesday, we will have the time to make calls and so forth, and we can therefore tell the institutions that they can start work. There is no point in delaying things because there are—

[English]

    We're delaying because we do have very good amendments. We can probably take the amendments--because our role is to make this better--put them in, have a good discussion about it, and say to these institutions, “Yes, now you can start working.”

    The Chair: I think it's time to make a decision. I think in fairness, we are going to adjourn and reconvene on Tuesday. I think that's a wise decision. I think arguments have been made that are cogent, and I think we have to accept them in fairness and give people the chance to....

    Meanwhile, we'll call Mr. Reid's office and make sure that the translation of his notes in French be made available and that his notes be distributed in English and French to all the members so that they can have the notes and read them for themselves.

    Second, I think there's a commitment from all sides, and I think we should be on record on this, that we are meeting for clause-by-clause, with no more witnesses to be heard, and that we really want to proceed with this bill in fairness and as soon as possible.

    Now, if the House should adjourn on Friday, I don't have to tell you that we cannot meet without a quorum, number one. We have to have a quorum. Two, the quorum has to include a member of the opposition. These are the two conditions.

    I myself am quite prepared to come back very readily on Tuesday to do this work, if need be, after the adjournment of the House. I don't know what the feeling of the other members is, but it might be nice to know, on behalf of those who really want to move on with this bill...and I think there's a big point to be made about what Ms. Allard said

À  (1000)  

[Translation]

    She was saying that, by agreeing to clause by clause consideration of the bill, we would be giving the organizations the signal.

[English]

that we've reached a key point in the work, because that is a key point. Then they can start preparing much more readily.

[Translation]

    Can I ask you— I do not think that the House will adjourn Friday.

[English]

I don't think it will happen. I think we're going to sit next week. So the point is probably moot.

But if it were to break up on Friday, is there any feeling on all sides that we can get a quorum for next Tuesday, to come back?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: In that case, let's say we'll meet on Tuesday regardless--

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, if there's an opposition member, Mr. Chairman, we can proceed. But I'll be 10,000 miles away from here if the House isn't sitting. It's not quite as easy for me as it is for the rest of the committee, probably. I'm not whining about this; it's just a geographic fact of life. And I will have other obligations as well. If the House isn't sitting, the party has stuff lined up for us as long as your arm.

    But I also expect that we're going to be back, and I'll distribute my amendments in anticipation of that. I fully expect to be here on Tuesday anyway. I just won't promise to be here if the House is not sitting. I would probably be, but....

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Paul Bonwick: In the interest of timing, on the notes Mr. Reid had when he presented, he read them to us. I would suggest that the clerk can this afternoon, rather than go through the challenge of trying to source it out through Mr. Reid's office, pull the blues. There's going to be English and French translation, and the clerk can send the French translation over to Madam Girard-Bujold.

    The Chair: No, the blues are in the original language.

    Mr. Paul Bonwick: I thought they were translated within 48 hours.

    The Clerk: Not these days, with so much going on.

    The Chair: That's a good point, Mr. Bonwick, but I think we'll check with Mr. Reid just in case, because he said his office was translating it anyway.

    So one way or another, you will have a translation in English and French.

    Ms. Lill.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Again, could this happen tomorrow? Because I don't think I will be here next Tuesday.

    If you'll be here, Madam Girard-Bujold, that's good; you're the one opposition member guaranteeing that you will be here.

    So I'm just not sure if I will be here.

    The Chair: All right.

    Thank you for your time. We'll see you next Tuesday.

    I apologize to the officials, but that's the way it goes.

    The meeting is adjourned.